Was I the only one living under a rock that didnt knew that 500px released a publishing plugin for LR4? Quite slow, but amazing plugin!

I was following an online tutorial where they said something about the flickr plugin and i've thought "I hope its in their plans to make one for 500px" and they're at the 4th revision already; so it might had been out for a while.

All that time I was doing it manually...

I am a PC user btw. Just updated my system and its lighting fast on SSD with enough ram. I bought a spyder calibrator for my old monitors but my new ones calibrate by themselves. It was worth it but most quality LCD'S now have the automatic option.

Oh, and one more thing.. Do you guys use Mac or PC to edit? Some of my processed pictures look great on my Macbook Pro, but when I view them from my Sony Vaio they look horrible.. and vise versa. Now before I upload a photo I send it to both laptops just to compare, which is becoming a hassle :/

I agree with others who stated this is most likely a monitor/LCD screen calibration issue. Also it very much depends on the hardware if going PC.

For example, a business oriented laptop will usually have less emphasis on screen and graphics (read: will have a crappy screen and graphics card ).

In contrast, a dedicated workstation machine may have an excellent LCD display, a killer graphics card, lots of memory, etc. The screen is #1 and in my experience only the high end laptops have decent screens. Macs are known for being graphics oriented historically, hence they don't skimp in this area.

Dedicated gaming laptops, such as Alienware, will be great for this because modern games are extremely demanding on hardware, particularly graphics, and gamers expect the best screens as well just like graphics artists and photographers do.

I run a Dell Precision M6500 "mobile workstation", which is my workhorse laptop as I am in a technical field of work, specifically software. I also wanted to use it for my photo editing as well. It seems to be one of the last of a dying breed of laptops that has a 17" screen with a native 1920x1200 resolution. Many newer models, including the Dell M6600 (replacement of mine a year newer) only have 1920x1080. Not a deal breaker and has no bearing on screen quality, but I like my screen real estate

It also has an LG LCD that was, as the laptop, designed for heavy oil and gas exploration industry, AutoCAD and similar, video editing, graphic design, and photography in mind. I find colors on my laptop similar to my external Dell 2707WFP monitor, which also is known for excellent color reproduction, as are all of the high end Dell screens.

I am also running Win 7 64bit, with an i7 920X processor (2 generations old now, I think, but still plenty fast), and currently 16GB of ram which I am going to upgrade to 32GB. Probably overkill for photo editing but I run virtual machines on my laptop for work which take up lots of RAM.

Two bits of advice -

1. As I think someone else mentioned, you can get a calibration device such as a Spyder, to calibrate your screens and normalize the color reproduction. It comes with software that you install which works with the device, it's pretty straight forward to use.

2. If you don't already have one, get a Solid State Drive (SSD) for your laptop. It is the single most awesome thing you can do to improve speed of most, if not all, of your workflow. Opening files, saving files, batch operations, etc., even opening Photoshop, is all blazing fast. Anything that involves reading or writing data to and from the hard drive is noticeably going to be faster over a standard hard drive. Extremely, not subtly, noticeable.

My laptop has 3 of them, 2 of which are in Raid0 which basically combines them into one, even faster drive

It could just be that they assigned the programmer to the big money camera first and it'll trickle down to the prosumer soon. I hope the 5D3 is capable. I'm guessing it is because we have the same pattern and most of the same program.

Btw, they may not allow that feature on the 5D3 just to differentiate between the two. But, it would be awesome if they did give that functionality to the 5D3.

Can't wait to do the update... Too bad I'm out of town right now though.

The 5D3 is Canon's competitor to Nikon's D800, which does AF to f/8 (I wonder how good it is, since it's doesn't cut the mustard at f/4). I think the 5D3 needs this feature to help justify the price premium over the D800. Also, it's being recognized as a very viable bird and wildlife photography body (with some limitations) but this addition would give it a big boost in that direction.

We'll see, but I think that it'd be a big mistake to not offer it on the 5D3 now that we know that it's not a mechanical limitation for that AF system. Either it'll happen in a matter of weeks, or Canon will hit us on our heads again for being so logical and presumptuous.

The 5D3 is Canon's competitor to Nikon's D800, which does AF to f/8 (I wonder how good it is, since it's doesn't cut the mustard at f/4). I think the 5D3 needs this feature to help justify the price premium over the D800. Also, it's being recognized as a very viable bird and wildlife photography body (with some limitations) but this addition would give it a big boost in that direction.

We'll see, but I think that it'd be a big mistake to not offer it on the 5D3 now that we know that it's not a mechanical limitation for that AF system. Either it'll happen in a matter of weeks, or Canon will hit us on our heads again for being so logical and presumptuous.

Dave

Dave,

I feel like Canon is more doing their own thing than trying to compete head to head with Nikon. The 5D3 isn't really a direct comparison to the D800 even though their prices are similar. They are also expecting to release some megapixel monster that could be a 1D-series camera with a new sensor. This would also not be in the same category as the D800.

I feel like Canon is more doing their own thing than trying to compete head to head with Nikon. The 5D3 isn't really a direct comparison to the D800 even though their prices are similar. They are also expecting to release some megapixel monster that could be a 1D-series camera with a new sensor. This would also not be in the same category as the D800.

The 7D already beats the D800 in pixel density and the 7D MkII will probably blow it away if it gets the new AF system and improved high-ISO performance.

The D800 seems ideal for landscapes and portraits and studio work, where the 5D3 is more of an all around body that's really good at landscapes, portraits and studio work, but also very good for nature, sports and higher ISO. Many thought that the pixel density of the D800 would make it a great wildlife and bird body, but the slower, imprecise AF are two, too big, negatives for those uses.

Still, I think that they do consider those cameras head-to-head competitors when you look at them as general use bodies and exclude special purpose uses. Few are going to change system brands to go from one of these bodies to the other, but the makes want to stack up attributes that make their cameras competitive at each price point and these two are nailing down the $3000-$4000 range.

Here's a killer camera proposal: take the 7D, add the new 61-point AF system, keep the pixel density close to the same, but improve the high-ISO performance close to one stop as they did with the 5D3 and AF at f/8. That'll be a killer bird, wildlife and sport body for under $3,000. Sorry, but the price isn't going to stay at $1,800. I'm betting that the 7D MkII comes in around $2,400, maybe up to $2,800.

What about my EOS 5D Mark III?
It may not be as simple as just updating the firmware in the same way. If you remember the story about getting f/8 to work on the EOS-1D X with a Kenko teleconverter, Arthur Morris was unable to make the EOS 5D Mark III do the same thing with the exact same teleconverter. The fact that Canon hasnít updated both cameras at the same time tells me there are indeed differences in the AF systems. I am reminded only the EOS-1 line has ever had f/8 autofocus, so it may not be something that gets added to the 5D Mark III anyway.

Here's a killer camera proposal: take the 7D, add the new 61-point AF system, keep the pixel density close to the same, but improve the high-ISO performance close to one stop as they did with the 5D3 and AF at f/8. That'll be a killer bird, wildlife and sport body for under $3,000. Sorry, but the price isn't going to stay at $1,800. I'm betting that the 7D MkII comes in around $2,400, maybe up to $2,800.

Dave

So would that take us back to the need for 2 bodies like we saw with the 5D MkII and the 7D? Or do you think the 5D MkIII will continue to suffice as a single body solution?

No, it's about pixel density and telephoto "reach". The number of pixels on the subject in a focal length limited shooting situation, like birds, is determined by the focal length of the lens and the pixel-density of the sensor. The problem is controlling noise as pixel-pitch gets lower.

I'd just as soon have a full-frame sensor, but with the pixel-density of the current 7D, but with improved SN ratio, better AF system and AF to f/8.

If I spend $13,000 on a 600mm lens, then I want to be able to use it with a 2X or 1.4X TC so that I've got 600mm, 840mm and 1200mm at my disposal with AF. I'd rather have a compact body, like the 7D or 5D.

The 1D-X was not designed for optimal performance in focal length limited situtations. It's still a fine bird/wildlife body, particularly in very low light, but it's really not aimed at the market, like the 1D MkIV was or the good, but flawed, 7D. (Unreliable AF and relatively poor high-ISO performance). The 1D-X excells when used with the right focal length lens for the situation, so giving it f/8 AF is HUGE at increasing its versatility. I may end up owning one, but I'm waiting to see how both my 5D MkIII and the 7D MkII works out. If they get f/8 AF, then I'll be sticking with them.

So would that take us back to the need for 2 bodies like we saw with the 5D MkII and the 7D? Or do you think the 5D MkIII will continue to suffice as a single body solution?

It depends how much reach you need Mark. The 5D3 is good enough for most, except those who shoot sports or wildlife maybe. Assuming the 7D2 comes with more MPs, those who print large or crop a lot might find it useful as well.

But honestly, if you are doing something for a professional contract and need large billboard sized prints, you probably should be shooting with medium format.

Oh yeah, and its always good to have a good second body as a backup in the field.

So would that take us back to the need for 2 bodies like we saw with the 5D MkII and the 7D? Or do you think the 5D MkIII will continue to suffice as a single body solution?

I concur, at least for those of us that like to shoot focal length limited subjects. However, the 5D MkIII really fixed the MkII's AF issues to the extent that it is now superior to the 7D in this regards. The 6-fps of the MkIII was also a big step forward for those that shoot sports and wildlife, although I still miss my 8-fps from the 7D. Still, at this moment, the 5D MkIII is a superior bird in flight body to the 7D because of its faster, more accurate AF.

IF the 7D MkII give it close to another stop of DR (it's pixel-density is already high enough, IMHO) then it'll be a go-to camera for focal length limited shooters. (With the new prices on the Series II lenses, many more us will be focal length limited than before the price increases). I would carry both bodies for the luxury of FF for portraits, scenics and travel.

For most people that are serious and can afford it, I'd recommend the 5D MkIII. Most of us don't really need a back up body and few actually shoot a lot of focal length limited situations.

For most people that are serious and can afford it, I'd recommend the 5D MkIII. Most of us don't really need a back up body and few actually shoot a lot of focal length limited situations.

Dave

This is my plan. The 5D MkIIs are showing up in very affordable sales promotions now, but I don't think I'd make efficient use of two bodies. I've barely touched my T1i since I got the 7D. I can't see myself deciding which body to haul around on a given day. If I had the discretionary funds to buy a 5D MkII now, I'd have my 7D on the market to raise the extra to get the MkIII.

I used to have a Vaio and the color profile was entirely too warm, it seems Macs are color calibrated nicely out of the box.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcstep

I use 64-bit PC. There used to be delays for the Apple versions of my software (DxO) but I think they've fixed that. I use calibrated monitors for both my desktop and laptop. Since you can now run several OS on the Apple machines, I could probably stand to use Apple, but I see no reason.

I think calibrated monitors are key to consistent images. At the end of last year I bought a Lenovo laptop that had a very cool, blueish screen tint and when I'd view images processed on it they were way too saturated on my calibrated monitor. I had to re-process several batches of images and I bought a Spyder to calibrate the laptop and avoid double processing.

In Shutterbug Magazine there was a discussion, one of the Macs, I think it was the old MacMini, had a monitor that wouldn't calibrate to most standards. I think that was an isolated case and related to one of their all-in-one boxes.

I'm wondering, has anyone worked with the Retina display on a MacBook Pro? I heard that the screen is pretty incredible, but was wondering how the color temp is for image processing. Will the available color Spyders correct it?

Dave

Quote:

Originally Posted by ddk632

I agree with others who stated this is most likely a monitor/LCD screen calibration issue. Also it very much depends on the hardware if going PC.

For example, a business oriented laptop will usually have less emphasis on screen and graphics (read: will have a crappy screen and graphics card ).

In contrast, a dedicated workstation machine may have an excellent LCD display, a killer graphics card, lots of memory, etc. The screen is #1 and in my experience only the high end laptops have decent screens. Macs are known for being graphics oriented historically, hence they don't skimp in this area.

Dedicated gaming laptops, such as Alienware, will be great for this because modern games are extremely demanding on hardware, particularly graphics, and gamers expect the best screens as well just like graphics artists and photographers do.

I run a Dell Precision M6500 "mobile workstation", which is my workhorse laptop as I am in a technical field of work, specifically software. I also wanted to use it for my photo editing as well. It seems to be one of the last of a dying breed of laptops that has a 17" screen with a native 1920x1200 resolution. Many newer models, including the Dell M6600 (replacement of mine a year newer) only have 1920x1080. Not a deal breaker and has no bearing on screen quality, but I like my screen real estate

It also has an LG LCD that was, as the laptop, designed for heavy oil and gas exploration industry, AutoCAD and similar, video editing, graphic design, and photography in mind. I find colors on my laptop similar to my external Dell 2707WFP monitor, which also is known for excellent color reproduction, as are all of the high end Dell screens.

I am also running Win 7 64bit, with an i7 920X processor (2 generations old now, I think, but still plenty fast), and currently 16GB of ram which I am going to upgrade to 32GB. Probably overkill for photo editing but I run virtual machines on my laptop for work which take up lots of RAM.

Two bits of advice -

1. As I think someone else mentioned, you can get a calibration device such as a Spyder, to calibrate your screens and normalize the color reproduction. It comes with software that you install which works with the device, it's pretty straight forward to use.

2. If you don't already have one, get a Solid State Drive (SSD) for your laptop. It is the single most awesome thing you can do to improve speed of most, if not all, of your workflow. Opening files, saving files, batch operations, etc., even opening Photoshop, is all blazing fast. Anything that involves reading or writing data to and from the hard drive is noticeably going to be faster over a standard hard drive. Extremely, not subtly, noticeable.

My laptop has 3 of them, 2 of which are in Raid0 which basically combines them into one, even faster drive

Agreed about the SSD. After seeing what it did for my laptop, I bought one for my workstation. Now it screams as well.

Thank you so much for the replies guys, and apologies for my late reply. As usual I find all your information to be extremely helpful, I'm going to do some research into Spyder, and hopefully it will be the solution for my problem!